He started out on with philosophy of political science while on his trips and visits to other countries outside of England to listen to other scientists and learn different forms of government. While studying, Thomas Hobbes wondered about why people were allowing themselves to be ruled and what would a great form of government for England. He reasoned that people were naturally wicked and shouldn’t be trusted to govern themselves because they were selfish creatures and would do anything to better their position and social status. These people, when left alone will go back to their evil impulses to get a better advantage over others. So Thomas Hobbes concluded that the best form of government would an absolute monarchy, which is a government …show more content…
According to Thomas Hobbes, the reason this is the case is because people are selfish and evil and that they protect their interests really well by using certain tactics to make sure other people devastate their needs and wants. Also, without a leader, these people would be very chaotic and attack one another of many things when there isn’t any government in charge.
Thomas Hobbes also didn 't support the idea of democracy where the citizens’ were allowed to vote for their government leaders. Due to his idea that people are only trying to promote their self-interests, democracy wouldn’t be a great idea because he wrote that “All mankind is in a perpetual and restless desire for power which can only stop in death,” so giving power to the individual would be creating a dangerous situation which would start a “war of every man against every man, “and life will be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Despite all this, Thomas Hobbes still believed a diverse group of representatives that can present the problems of the common person to king, so prevent them from being cruel and unfair but the monarch has the final
…show more content…
While Thomas Hobbes believed that all people were wicked only fighting for their own interests, John Locke believed that person were naturally good and once they were born, they were empty slates which makes them learn from their experiences instead of just being outright evil. John Locke believed in democracy because if a government is like an absolute monarch, it won’t satisfy all the needs of the people and this is why the people have a right to revolt against an abusive government as proven in the American Revolutionary War with King George III or the French Revolutionary War with King Louis XVI who didn 't support their citizen’s ideas and goals. Thomas Hobbes believed that people couldn 't be trusted because they would only fight for their own interests, so an absolute monarch would demand obedience to maintain order, but John Locke States that people can be trusted since all people are naturally good but depending on our experiences as they can still govern themselves. The Purpose of the government, according to John Locke is to protect the individual liberties and rights instead of just keeping law and order because with law and order being put strictly, the people would rebel because it didn’t represent them and then the country will collapse because the king was too
Thomas Hobbes believes that the optimal form of authority is one that has absolute power over its people, consisting of just one person who will retain the exclusive ability to oversee and decide on all of society’s issues. This Sovereign will be constituted by a social contract with the people. With that, the Sovereign will hold all of the citizens’ rights, and will be permitted to act in whichever way he or she deems necessary. The philosopher comes to this conclusion with deductive reasoning, utilizing a scientific method with straightforward arguments to prove his point.
Lockes and Hobbes ideas of government differed greatly, Hobbes believed in an absolute government while Locke believed in a very limited one.Locke believed that people were naturally good and trustful and that they had the capacity to govern themselves. So the need of the government only came in the form of stopping any potential disputes that would occur. While Hobbes believed that humans were not all that good and their need for government stemmed from the fact that people cannot govern themselves. Furthermore Locke believed that the governments role was to listen to the people it was governing, a rule by consent. While Hobbes believed that the Government was to rule on it’s own and owed no answers or consent by the people. Moreover Locke believed that the purpose of the government was to protect the property and freedom of its people, while Hobbes believed that the governments role was to tell them what to do. But arguably the biggest difference between the philosophies is the notion of government accountability. Hobbes believed that the government had free reign to do what they please with no backlash, while Locke believed that if the social contract was broken then the people of the community had the right to revolt and over throw the government. To further this point Locke unlike Hobbes believed that leaders should
Hobbes' theory is a pessimistic look at human being and the way they act around each other but Locke's theory suggests that people are more easy-going and peaceful towards each other. Hobbes point of view on human nature and how a government should be run is a more realistic way of looking at things than John Locke?s theory though. Both Hobbes and Locke see human nature differently, Hobbes sees people as being run by selfishness whereas Locke says that people are naturally kind. As we see in the news daily, people are often cruel and inhumane, and we also see kinder people in everyday life. We see people who give up their own personal pleasure so they can serve others. But these people are far and few between, it becomes quickly obvious that humans are drawn towards self-happiness.
Hobbes, an aristocrat who lived through the English civil war, had to flee England, watch his monarch’s execution, and observes the violence of human nature at its very worst. Given this experience, his central concern was the need for absolute power to maintain peace and prevent another civil war. On the other hand, John Locke lived and wrote forty years later, after the Glorious Revolution. His ideas developed in the context of a period in which individual’s rights and power were emphasized. He believed that individuals needed freedom from control to reach their full potential. Hobbes became an advocate for absolutism--the belief that because humans are naturally power seeking, a sovereign is needed to maintain peace, and the individual must completely submit to that power. In contrast, Locke advocated constitutionalism, the belief that all individuals have inherit rights, government should be based on consensus, and citizens must fight for their liberty in the face of an overpowering government. These philosophers and their ideas outlined the debate about where power should lie in society–with the individual or with the state.
Hobbes and Locke’s each have different ideologies of man’s state of nature that develops their ideal form of government. They do however have similar ideas, such as how man is born with a perfect state of equality that is before any form of government and social contract. Scarcity of goods ultimately leads to Hobbes and Locke’s different states of nature that shapes their two different ideal governments because Hobbes believes that scarcity of goods will bring about a constant state of war, competition, and greed of man that cannot be controlled without a absolute sovereign as government while Locke believes that with reasoning and a unified government, man will succeed in self preservation of himself and others.
Hobbes, on the other hand attested to a role of government akin to monarchy or dictatorship. His definition of the role of the state is a direct inversion of Locke’s. He states society is a creation of the state and therefore the governed surrender their rights so the state can fulfill its main func...
The syllable of the syllable. Hobbes states that the proper form of civil government must have a supreme ruler governing the people in order to avoid the state of war. He believes that the goal of the people is to escape the state of war, and that they are willing to transfer their rights in order to leave it. “Whensoever a man transfers his right, or renounces it; it is either in consideration of some right reciprocally transferred to himself; or for some other good he hopes for thereby. For it is a voluntary act: and of the voluntary acts of every man, the object is some good to himself.
Hobbes argues for this form of government as a solution to the crises of all men being equal and them having the right to get justice when laws or rules are broken. He says that there should be a social contract putting trust into one person to take care of all the good and bad that people do. It is not a right that puts someone into power, but a contract with the people so that they can change who is in charge if they feel that, that person is not getting the justice that is needed and allowing bad stuff to continue to happen. Hobbes also argues that this form of government was needed to overcome the defects of human nature, his case was made by referring to science rather than religion to support this form of
In sophisticated prose, Hobbes manages to conclude that human beings are all equal in their ability to harm each other, and furthermore that they are all capable of rendering void at will the covenants they had previously made with other human beings. An absolutist government, according to Hobbes, would result in a in a society that is not entirely focused on self-preservation, but rather a society that flourishes under the auspices of peace, unity, and security. Of all the arguably great philosophical discourses, Hobbes in particular provides one of the surest and most secure ways to live under a sovereign that protects the natural liberties of man. The sovereign government is built upon the idea of stability and security, which makes it a very intriguing and unique government indeed. The aforementioned laudation of Hobbes and his assertions only helps to cement his political theories at the forefront of the modern
He states that, “Every one with every one...Shall be given by the major part, the right to present the person of them all” (Hobbes [1651] 2013). Thus, a democratic form of governance is beginning to emerge, and the responsibility of the sovereign is to form laws that avoid returning to a state of nature. Essentially, Hobbes presents a way of government that appears optimal, and capable of lasting a long term. The elected sovereign is not to be overthrown because through the unanimous decision of members of the state the sovereign was chosen, and maintain authority through deliverance of suitable laws (Hobbes [1651] 2013). Thus, citizens are more likely to comply with this form of government because they maintain the impression that their sovereign only looks out for their best interests, as well as recognizes what is best for them because he was chosen to be in
Thomas Hobbes is frequently credited as being a forefather to modern liberalism. With his beliefs on individualism, along with his agreeance and acceptance of intellectual and moral autonomy it is easy to understand why many modern liberals would agree with Hobbes’s political philosophy. However, Thomas Hobbes does not support the concept of a democratic government, rather he supported the notion of a absolutist government up until his death. Special attention must be given to Hobbes’s denial that autonomy can be thought of, or conceived as, a form of self-government. It is important to take note that Hobbes’s argument against democracy is significantly more exhaustive than merely autonomy. Hobbes believes that democracy cannot work as a form of government due to numerous reasons, three of which will be the focus of this paper. Initially, we will lay a foundation to demonstrate how democracy is not equal to other forms of government, rather it acts more like a launch point for other, more preferable, types of government regimes. Secondly, we will demonstration that democracy reproduces the instability and despair that is accustom with, and found in, the state of nature, which is contradictory to the entire idea of a sovereign. And finally we will establish that while Hobbes consents to and also protects intellectual and moral autonomy, the notion of autonomy, in its political form, as self-government (which may be taken to imply democracy), cannot work because of its contradictory nature. This is a result of the notion, that government, for Hobbes, is responsible for the creation and subsequent enforcement of the laws. Hence, these reasons put forth by Hobbes, in addition to the arguments that will be made against ...
These differences affect the livelihood and happiness of people. Hobbes wanted a government to prevent chaos and anarchy as he saw all men were selfish after his experience with the Civil War, while Locke wanted a government to protect everyone’s natural rights. Hobbes Monarch with an absolute ruler, Is different than Locke’s idea of a constitutional government. Hobbes absolute ruler theory forced people to behave themselves, and protected them from killing each other, Locke’s constitutional theory protected their lives, their liberty, and their property. These are different because, while Locke agrees with protecting peoples lives such as Hobbes did, he also believed more than just lives should be protected. Another difference between Hobbes and Locke was their belief if power should be limited. Since Hobbes believed in an absolute ruler, and his idea of government formed a Monarchy, the people were to give up their sovereignty for their own good to the absolute ruler. This gave the absolute ruler unlimited power, which prevented the people from over throwing him. While Locke’s idea of government, which was formed to aid the protection of peoples natural rights and not only to protect themselves from one another, limited the power of the government and gave people the right to over throw the government if they failed to protect their natural rights. Their
Thomas Hobbes? idea of a perfect government was one of small proportions. All of the citizens of a country had a ?covenant?, or promise with the ruler. This covenant with the ruler stated that the citizen would give up the right to govern his or herself, and give that right to the ruler. Hobbes? idea of society arises from an innate competition between every man. Everyone seeks their advantage, and is always at war with everyone else for that advantage. These factions negotiate, according to Hobbes, complying with whatever principles will ensure survival for its members. So according to Hobbes, war is the natural state of man. Peace is only had by our natural tendencies to compromise, and survive.
Hobbes believes that if there is no government then it will lead to a state of war. This is because the people can have different judgement which cause them to not have an agreement on what the government should contain. This means that the people did not view each other as equal and did not have the same morals as Locke would believe in. It can also lead to a state of war if the people don’t have the right to property since it will cause the peace to break. However, the only type of state Hobbes believes in is the Leviathan state that has only one
Hobbes view of human nature lead him to develop his vision of an ideal government. He believed that a common power was required to keep men united. This power would work to maintain the artificial harmony among the people as well as protect them from foreign enemies.